Lords Match Rigged? 7 Pak players Involved. Big Stash of Evidence Seized

Status
Not open for further replies.
^you're right about matches regarding only Pakistan so far. There's reports saying outcomes of matches were fixed in previous Pak tours. But as for India/IPL, a full probe was launched into the fixing rumors of IPL amidst the Modi vs Tharoor and like I said it just turned up to be tabloid reporting hoping to create more drama.

As for Pakistan hopefully the punishments will be severe. If the fixing rumors go back to 2 years like the fixer says, I hope they get stripped of the Test and ODI status and be disqualified for World Cup. Lifetime bans are almost guaranteed for Amir, Asif, Butt and others involved and the entire janamkundli of PCB is about to be revealed in this fiasco. Scotland yard doesn't mess about.
 
Politics my friend is a far bigger sham than this match fixing thing.

If diplomatic pressure is applied anything can be canned. But i too sincerely hope this doesnt goes Scot Free. Scotland Yard adopts the reg yardstick for its action.

How things come back a complete circle. i remember once debating with Param abt wwe's fixed nature and how things are all fake and compared the horrors of match fixing and the subtle way this wwe is overlooked and match fixing was blown away when revealed. that wwe was a legitimized way of doing it, and again wwe and match fixing are being equated.
 
Strange how so-called 'spot fixing' chalta hay, but match fixing is OH NO NO! And calls for Mr. Md. Azharudin's records to be brought back on the official books. Chalta hay :no:
 
hellfire said:
Remember what happened to Hansie Cronje and Bob Woolmer?
Click to expand...
Yes, Woolmer's wife & three pathologists from different continents said there was no foul play involved. Course everyone believes the indian origin pathologist who first examined him and take it as FACT !

See, I long ago concluded you amongst others and certain members of my family had already conducted their own independent enquiries into this matter and naturally know much more about this case than Woolmer's wife + the 3 doctors :rolleyes:
 
^^ and you coming and thinking we keep watching cricket to talk abt it.. :rofl:

and even more hilarious.. you keep visiting cricket threads to post your blissful pearls of sarcasm when you keep claiming u got zuck of an interest in it. :rofl: :rofl:
 
The three people suspended : Salman Butt, Asif and Aamir

This pic really raised doubts.. looking at the bowler's foot, even when the ball has been released:

 
Spacescreamer said:
The three people suspended : Salman Butt, Asif and Aamir

This pic really raised doubts.. looking at the bowler's foot, even when the ball has been released:

Click to expand...
Bowler seems to have doubt in his own ability that he needed to cross 2km pass the line.Instead of unprofessional ill say totally he doesnt deserve a place in side .
 
blr_p said:
Yes, Woolmer's wife & three pathologists from different continents said there was no foul play involved. Course everyone believes the indian origin pathologist who first examined him and take it as FACT !

See, I long ago concluded you amongst others and certain members of my family had already conducted their own independent enquiries into this matter and naturally know much more about this case than Woolmer's wife + the 3 doctors :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well Sir, I hope you know what's an inquest. And that what's the meaning of an "Open Verdict" in England & Wales legal system?
 
blr_p said:
Could you clarify for those that do not ?
Click to expand...
Google is our friend

EDIT: Apologies if I sounded rude. But an open verdict would mean that the jury had enough suspicion on the facts but they had no choice. The point being lack of evidence ... a procedural lacuna that let off the accused.
 
I remember being heart broken when Azhar and Jadeja were found to be rogue, must be similar if not more for a Pakistani team supporter/fan
 
hellfire said:
an open verdict would mean that the jury had enough suspicion on the facts but they had no choice. The point being lack of evidence ... a procedural lacuna that let off the accused.
Click to expand...
That means those making the charge Woolmer was murdered do not have a basis to do so.
 
blr_p said:
That means those making the charge Woolmer was murdered do not have a basis to do so.
Click to expand...
That means the jury was not fully convinced that it was not a murder, but they didn't have enough material. In absolute layman terms the jury had suspicions of murder but they couldn't prove it so they had to give the benefit of doubt.
 
Jury can be suspicous of lots of things but in the end what stands is what can be proven and as said earlier, no evidence (direct as opposed to circumstantial) exists that he was murdered. Just looking at the way his wife behaved after the incident gave me a strong hunch things were not as they are made out to be. But its not for me to prove a negative but rather for those to show it actually did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom